Skip to main content

Full text of "Ukrainian Voters on Politics, Elections and Candidates"

See other formats


tics, Elections and 



tes 



Focus Group Discussions 
September and October, 1999 




Commissioned by: UCCA under a grant from USAID 



December 1999: QEV Analytics was commissioned by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of 
America to conduct focus group discussions in Ukraine on the attitudes of voters towards the 
presidential ejections and their informational needs. This report presents our analysis of the 
eight focus group discussions held in Kyiv, Kharkivand Odessa, September and October, 1999. 



Analysis by: Steven Wagner & Elehie Skoczylas 



QEV Analytics 



410 Constitution Avenue, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

PH: 202.546-8464 FX: 202.546-1240 

Email: wagner@qlv.com URL: www.qev.com 









2 INTRODUCTION 

3 DATA BASE 

4 SUMMARY 

7 POLITICAL LANDSCAPE 

1 1 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 

14 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 

18 UKRAINE'S POLITICAL CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL 



19 APPENDIX 



Note on Methodology 
moderator's guide i 
Moderator's Guide II 
Fill-in Questionnaire 
Quantified Data 



In September and October, 1999, a total of 
eight focus groups were conducted in three 
Ukrainian cities, Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odessa. 
The purpose was to explore attitudes 
towards the presidential election and to 
examine the informational needs of voters. 
The discussions focused on how voters view 
Ukraine's political system and how they 
define their role in the evolving political 
culture. 

In reporting the findings, we have tried to 
replicate the substance and the tone of the 
group discussions. The quotations cited in 
the text are actual comments of 
participants, edited for coherence and 
grammar, and translated as closely as 
possible into colloquial English. The 
findings are thematicaliy organized and 
follow the order in the moderator's guide 
(for a copy of the Moderator's Guide, see 
Appendix, page 20). The questions listed 
below represent the issues explored by 
participants in the focus group discussions. 1 

Political Landscape 

1 . What are Ukraine's main problems? 

2. Who could solve Ukraine's problems? 

Presidential Election 

3. Will the 1999 presidential election be fair 
and honest? 

4. Will voters participate in the election? 



1 Nol included in this report are rmdings on ihe testing 
of communications products: these findings were used 
to fine-tune the products and. therefore, are not 
included in this report. 



5. What attributes should have the president of 
Ukraine? 

Presidential Candidates 

6. What do voters know about the candidates? 

7. Are political parties useful to identify 
candidates? 

8. Is the Ieft-to-right spectrum meaningful for 
differentiating candidates? 

9. What information do voters need about a 
candidate? 

The findings from the focus groups are 
indicative of the views and attitudes of the 
urban voters, not only of the cities, but of 
the regions where the discussions took 
place. In terms of demographics, focus 
group participants matched the profile of 
urban voters in the .presidential election, 
except that focus group participants were 
better educated. The educational 

difference, however, does not affect the 
findings as indicative of urban opinion, 
since analyses of survey data have shown 
that education is not a definitive factor in 
attitudes. 

The Washington firm QEV Analytics 
designed and analyzed the group 
discussions; the research issues were 
finalized in consultation with the UCCA 
New York and Kyiv offices. The Ukrainian 
firm KJIS conducted all aspects of the 
fieldwork, screening and inviting 
participants, as well as organizing and 
managing the group discussions. 

Funding for the research was provided by 
UCCA under a grant from US AID. 






DATA BASE 

This report is based on an analysis of eight 
focus group discussions: four in Kyiv 
(September 14, October 22 and 28), two in 
Odessa (September 1 5), and two in Kharkiv 
(September 16). A total of 79 individuals 
participated, with 9-10 in each group. All 
were eligible voters who had at least some 
secondary education and were employed at 
least part time or were full time students. 
Four groups consisted of young adults 
(aged 18-35) and four of adults between the 
ages of 40 and 55. 



An experienced moderator led the group 
discussions, using a guide specifically 
designed for this project. Participants 
identified and rank ordered Ukraine's main 
problems, described their attitudes towards 
the election and their views of presidential 
candidates. The second part of each session 
was devoted to test products prepared for 
the "Making of the President" project, six 
radio and three television announcements 
encouraging voter turnout and a brochure 
about candidates and the election. 







16 - 25 
26 - 35 
40 - 45 
46 — 55 


19 (24%) 
21 (26%) 
14(18%) 
25 (32%) 


7 

13 
10 
10 


4 
6 
1 
9 


8 

2 
3 

6 


||lll|is&' ! SsH^IM^^^^^^nnil^j 










Secondary 
Technical 
University 


11 (14%) 
21 (27%) 
46 (58%) 


9 

12 

19 



7 
13 



4 
15 



SUMMARY 

Below are the most significant findings that 
emerge from our analysis of focus group 
discussions conducted in three cities of 
Ukraine, Kyiv, Odesa and Kharkiv, in 
September and October 1999. 

Economic crisis dominated as the country's 
main problem, but also frequently 
mentioned were the political, social and 
cultural crises. Generally, these crises were 
seen as interdependent, with the political 
structure considered as being at the root of 
the economic and the social problems. A 
few expressed concern about Ukraine's 
status in the international community. 

The political crisis was defined as the 
failure of politicians to address the needs of 
the people and a lack of a vision of the 
future. National political figures and 
leading parries were not seen as being 
focused on solving Ukraine's problems or 
as offering distinct solutions. Although 
frustrated with the political structure, 
almost no one placed responsibility on a 
single person or an institution. 
Expectations for the future are quite 
negative, with most convinced that there is 
no one who could solve the country's 
problems. This perception may be at the 
core of Ukraine's failure to move forward, a 
lethargy that accepts historical inevitability. 

Notwithstanding the palpable disgust with 
politics and the universal expectation that 
the elections will not be fair or honest, 
there was keen interest in the presidential 
election. What was even more surprising, 
in view of the very negative attitudes 



towards politics and elections, was the 
widespread commitment to vote: almost 
every participant intended to vote on 
October 31 and in the second round. From 
the perspective of participants these 
opinions were not inconsistent: voting was 
a right of citizenship and they were proud 
of this right, although they did not have a 
sense of empowerment from voting. But 
even more importantly, participants 
believed that the best way to thwart 
election fraud is by voting, meaning thai 
each voter who cast a ballot prevented 
others from using his or her vote. 

Opinions regarding the presidential 
candidates were quite soft. Typically, less 
than half of the presidential candidates 
could be named spontaneously, most 
frequently Kuchma, Symonenko, Moroz, 
Marchuk, Vitrenko, and Udovenko; others 
usually came up only with prompting. 
None of the candidates were seen as having 
a distinct policy identity, meaning that the 
participants could not distinguish how 
candidates proposed to approach Ukraine's 
problems. There was also little ideological 
coherence to a candidate's image. Only the 
two leading candidates had a distinct 
ideological identity, Kuchma on the right 
and Symonenko on the left. Other 
candidates were as likely to be seen 
ideologically on the left as on the right. 

About six weeks before the election, many 
participants voiced concern that the 
candidates did not present real choices and 
did not offer coherent statements on what 
they intend to do when elected. Most 
participants had not made up their mind 
whom to vote for and almost no one 






expressed intensively pro or anti opinions 
regarding any of the candidates. About one- 
third expressed preference for a candidate, 
but most wanted more information to make 
a decision. These findings suggest that the 
electorate tended to be middle of the road 
and was not ideologically polarized (and 
voters proved this on November 14). 

The Kaniv agreement contributed to a 
cynicism about the political process and was 
seen as a vestige of the Soviet system, a 
behind the scenes brokering of deals that 
completely ignored the public. To some, 
the Kaniv group also illustrated each 
candidate's lack of discernible left, right, or 
centrist position and reinforced the 
prevailing opinion that the candidates were 
in the election only for personal gains, 
driven by ambition for personal power. 

Yet, taking a step back from the October 3 1 
election, the focus group discussions 
provide evidence of positive developments 
in Ukraine's political culture and indicate 
the absence of an organized system that 
could give expression to and advance the 
interests of voters. 

On the positive side, there appears to be a 
convergence of political outlook between 
ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians. The 
political orientations expressed through 
these groups varied little among the three 
cities, even though the ethnic composition 
of the groups did differ. Additionally, 
ethnic Russian participants expressed no 
annoyance that the promotional materials 
they reviewed used only the Ukrainian 
language. These findings indicate that 
ethnic Russians in Ukraine are embracing 
their citizenship. The urban society that is 
emerging in Ukraine is multi-ethnic, 



accepting of Ukrainian as the official 
language, and aware of and sensitive to the 
rights of individuals. 

Attitudes towards government officials 
appear devoid of the liberal democratic 
concept that elected officials serve voters. 
There was no expectation that elected 
officials should and could be held 
accountable for their actions or inactions. 
Nor is there a sense that voting is a form of 
empowerment. Frustrations with the 
political structure have a passive tone, an 
acceptance that the government system is 
immobilized or is unwilling to introduce 
the much-needed political, economic, and 
social changes. This passivity of the voters 
may reflect a belief in historical 
inevitability. The passivity and the sense of 
inevitability, however, did not lead to 
defeatism, and, on the whole, most 
participants were optimistic, convinced that 
eventually conditions will improve. 

The discussions on who could bring about 
change in Ukraine confirmed the belief that 
individuals are seen as powerless and unable 
to implement reforms in society. The view 
that individuals have no personal power, in 
some measure, probably determines how 
individuals relate to the political process 
and underpins their attitudes towards 
elected officials. Even on the most 
fundamental rights of citizens — the right 
to vote — participants did not see that they 
personally could do anything to improve 
the process. Most were frustrated with the 
paucity of information about candidates and 
wanted to make an informed decision about 
their vote, but felt they had no means and 
no right to demand information from 
candidates. 



The evolving political culture in Ukraine 
does have the basic elements needed for a 
democratic society: an electorate wanting 
to make informed decisions and 
participating in an election. Turnout in the 
second round was 75% of all eligible voters. 
However, there is no appreciation of civic 
activism as a requisite of a democratic 
political system, no understanding that 
voters have not only the right, but also the 
responsibility, to insist on receiving needed 
information and to hold elected officials 
accountable. 



Also worrisome is the view of political 
parties, which are seen mainly as satisfying 
personal egos and not as organizations of 
like-minded individuals, an essential feature 
of a functioning democracy. In today's 
world, a liberal democracy depends on the 
organizations that give expression to public 
interests: political parties, trade and 
professional associations, interest groups, 
and community associations. These 

organizations, to date, have not become an 
integral part of Ukraine's political 
structure. 



6 



POLITICAL LANDSCAPE 



1. What are Ukraine's main problems? 



In each focus group discussion, participants 
were asked to identify and rank order the 
most important problems in Ukraine. As 
would be expected, economic issues 
dominated, but also frequently mentioned 
were political, social, and cultural crises. 

Economic problems covered a wide range 
of subjects: instability in the domestic 
economy, low productivity, unemployment, 
and stagnation in many economic sectors. 
In Kharkiv and Odessa, specific economic 
problems were cited, while in Kyiv 
discussions were general, broad statements 
on the dire economic conditions. 



Political problems centered on the lack of 
leadership and the failure of the political 
system to bring about the changes that 
would benefit the public. Many were 
frustrated that the political system has not 
curbed corruption, prosecuted malfeasance 
and the misuse of public funds, or 
countered fraudulent activities that allow 
individuals to exploit the economy for 
personal gains. Although no political leader 
or institution was seen as responsible for 
the problems in the country, the political 
system was seen as being too tolerant of 
illegal activities. For example, President 
Kuchma was seen as having tolerated 
Lazarenko's way to riches and his escape 
from the country. 



Figure 1. Main Problems in Ukraine 

Focus Croups September and October 1999 



ECONOMIC ISSUES 



Economic crisis, instability 
Unemployment 
Decline in productivity 
Reliance on foreign goods 
Excessive tax system 
Arrears in wages, pensions 
Lack of implementing reforms 



POLITICAL ISSUES 



Maintaining peace 

Political instability, indecision 

Corruption 

National identity 

International status 



SOCIAL ISSUES 



; ; 



Lack of good education 
Cultural degradation 
Lack of social safety nets 
Inadequate health services 
Crime, lawlessness 



Environmental protection 



I 



Kducation and cultural degradation were 
seen as the main social problems. 
Participants were concerned about the 
quality of primary and secondary education 
and the unavailability and high cost of 
textbooks. One participant noted that 
education was a low priority for politicians 
and illustrated his comment by comparing 
the quality of schoolbooks with publications 
produced for the 1998 parliamentary 
campaign. The former were badly bound 
on poor paper, whereas campaign literature 
was colorful, on top quality paper. 

Cultural degradation was a phrase 
describing the erosion of values in society. 
Specifically: no respect for elders; no sense 
of honor; no appreciation of the intellect; 
no rewards for accomplishments by 
ensuring employment to those who 
completed training or to those who have 
seniority; and insufficient financial support 
to cultural activities and cultural 
community leaders. 

The ranking of problems generally 
broadened into a discussion about the ' 
failure of politicians and the political system 
to handle the problems of Ukraine. The 
political crisis was seen as preceding the 
economic one and some viewed the failing 
economy as reflecting a lack of political 
leadership. Generally, problems were 
collapsed into three broad issues, with 
economic problems in first place, political 
in second and social in third place. This 
collapsing and ranking was typical of the 
older adults (40-55) in the three cities 
(Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa). 

The young urbanites, those between 18 and 
35 years of age, on the whole agreed that 
economic problems were the most 



pervasive and that the lack of political 
action was a reason for the continued 
economic crisis. However, they generally 
were reticent to rank order problems and 
reluctant to group economic and social 
issues. Opinions of the young also differed 
from city to city: 

■ In Kyiv, young adults focused on peace 
and stability, defining this as the need 
"to deal with issues that threaten our 
peace and to ensure that there is no war 
and that we have no terrorist acts, such 
as is happening in Moscow." 

■ In Kharkiv, the young refused to rank 
order problems, agreeing that "a 
ranking of issues is impossible since 
there is a dependency of economic and 
political issues; these are interconnected 
and cannot be treated separately." 

■ In Odessa, the young considered the 
decline in production as the foremost 
problem, followed by political and than 
social issues. In fourth place was 
national identity, defined in terms of 
Ukraine's international status. The 
group agreed with the proposition that 
the international community has not 
fully accepted Ukraine as a separate and 
independent state. 

The reluctance to rank order problems may 
indicate a level of sophistication in 
analyzing problems, a sensitivity to and an 
awareness of the interdependence of issues. 
However, the non-ranking may also be a 
legacy of the communist ideology, a 
totalitarian system that interprets history in 
terms of economic tensions, accepts the 
preeminence of politics, and assigns ail 
decision-making in a society to the 



Communist Party. The totalitarian mind- 
set may inhibit analyzing problems as 
discrete segments, of subdividing issues into 
separate and distinct areas in order to 
understand a process and identify solutions. 
Participants may be used to this rigid and 
structured system for analyzing social, 
political and economic problems. 



2. Who could solve Ukraine's 
problems? 

Respondents were asked who they consider 
could effectively deal with the country's 
problems. With one or two exceptions, 
most agreed that at the present time there 
is no such person or institution. Reasons 
given for this pessimistic outlook fall into 
four broad areas: the view of government 
officials; the understanding of the political 
system; perceptions about a vision of the 
future; and historical inevitability. 

There is widespread distrust of government 
officials, a lack of confidence that has been 
extensively documented in nationwide 
opinion surveys. In the group discussions, 
negative attitudes towards political leaders 
were tempered by a heavy dose of cynicism. 
Most subscribed to the view that political 
leaders seek office not for any general good, 
[jut to gratify personal needs and for 
personal gains. A young adult in Odessa 
thus summarized this view: "many who are 
in politics today are doing so for their 
personal interests; the problems of others 
are at the very bottom of their list." Young 
urbanites generally viewed an election as a 
competition among ambitious and self- 
centered individuals. 



Participants believed that political leaders 
serve only their close friends, specifically 
family members, persona! friends, business 
colleagues, and clan members. The clan 
was a candidate's inner circle, individuals 
who came from the leader's hometown. A 
young Odessa urbanite opined that "the 
government cannot solve problems since 
those in power are dependent on corporate 
and other interests. Government officials 
do not represent the interests of the public, 
but are mainly concerned with the 
economic sector that put the leader in 
power." 

Nor did participants expect that a 
candidate's campaign promises should 
translate into policies. Platforms of 
candidates were seen as serving only one 
purpose - to win an election. For example, 
while acknowledging that Kuchma did very 
little to improve conditions during his 
presidency, no one faulted him for touring 
the country and making new promises for 
the 1999 election. It was accepted that he 
did this to solicit votes. Even participants 
critical of Kuchma did not suggest that he 
be grilled on not delivering on past 
promises. It should be noted, however, 
that these views were not an expression of 
naivete or lack of critical thinking. Take 
for example participants who said they 
probably would vote for Kuchma. Their 
decision was not simply a process of 
elimination, that Kuchma was the most 
appealing of the candidates, but a 
preference for a middle of the road 
candidate rather than a communist or a 
former KGB leader. 

A few participants viewed power through 
the prism of the socialist-communist 
ideology. An older adult in Kyiv stated that 



"the mercantile interests dictate an election. 
In Ukraine at this rime, these mercantile 
interests are the driving force of individuals 
who want to assume power." 

Almost all participants were frustrated with 
the political structure and most agreed that 
a president alone cannot solve the country's 
problems and needs support from the 
legislature. However, such cooperation was 
not seen as happening and most agreed that 
"at this time, there is a struggle between the 
executive and the legislative branches. The 
President and the government cannot find 
any compromise with the Verkhovna 
Rada." The conflict between the president 
and the Rada was extensively discussed by 
young urbanites in Kharkiv and Kiev. In 
Kharkiv, a participant offered the following 
solution: "Since the Rada has too many 
opponents to reform, the president could 
dismiss the Rada and assume all power for a 
short time, a few months or half a year, and 
bring about the needed changes." 

Another frustration with the political 
system was that participants did not see a. 
future- loo king leader in Ukraine. This lack 
of a visionary generally was part of the 
discussion on the need for a clearly defined 
ideology to g-uide policy. An adult in 
Odessa was particularly frustrated that 
Ukraine has "no ideology to define what we 
are building - socialism, capitalism, or an 
economic system with a human face?" 
Generally, communists were seen as having 
a clarity of vision, but one of returning to 
the previous order, to a socialist road of 
development. The need for a visionary was 
thus articulated by a young urbanite in 
Odessa: "what Ukraine needs is someone 
who has a national idea, a vision that will 
appeal to and attract the general public. 



No one can lead a country out of its 
problems until a national idea can be 
articulated." Otherwise, many feared that 
the problems will persist, political leaders 
will continue to defend corporate interests, 
and eventually "an oligarchy will come to 
rule Ukraine." 

■ 
Discussions on the conditions in Ukraine 
had one notable undercurrent, acceptance 
of historical inevitability. The acceptance 
of conditions included an expectation that 
somehow, sometime conditions will 
improve. Some argued that the 

government and the people were the same 
and, therefore, either all or no one can be 
blamed for what is happening. An older 
participant in Odessa phrased it this way: 
"We first have to understand that the 
government and the people are one and the 
same, that they are in fact two sides of the 
same coin. As a matter of fact, the 
government is the people." 

The few who believed that someone could 
resolve the problems in Ukraine took two 
very different positions: 

■ In Kyiv, a few agreed that if Marchuk 
was elected, he could deal with the 
country's problems. 

■ In Odessa, young adults believed that a 
group of individuals "could band 
together to handle Ukraine's problems." 
In their view, what was needed "is not 
only a visionary leader, but a group of 
people dedicated to change and working- 
together to improve conditions in 
Ukraine. ... A single political leader 
can be easily put aside, whereas a group 
cannot be as easily removed." 



10 



PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION 



; .;;:;, : ;;w ;. .... .......: .;.■;.. ,.,....■,.,,■.■..,:.,.. :. 

3, Will the 1 999 presidential election be 
fair and honest? (and election costs) : 



Almost all agreed that there would be some 
fraud in the presidential election. 
Participants mentioned the buying of votes, 
the stuffing of ballot boxes, and giving 
orders on how to vote. Opinions differed 
in how extensive would be such practices, 
but almost all agreed that these would nor 
affect the outcome of the election. 
Participants were somewhat amused by the 
expectation that elections should be fair and 
honest, maintaining that politics is 
universally a "dirty business" and election 
fraud is part of the election process. Typical 
was the comment that "even in the much- 
praised United States, there are violations 
in an election" (Kyiv, older adult). 

Comments on vote buying included many 
references to the 1998 parliamentary 
election. According to a Kharkiv young 
adult, the cost of a vote in 1998 was "about 
3 bryvna (about 20 US cents). This amount 
was frequently given to old ladies along 
with instructions for whom to vote." In 
Kyiv, however, vote buying took a different 
form — giving gifts and promising future 
privileges. The most cynical viewed vote 
buying as an inexpensive way to reach 
voters. One older participant in Kharkiv 
defined vote buying as a subsidy to the 
poorest segments of society -- "In 1998, 
individuals who accepted money for their 
vote should not be judged; the poor needed 
hot food much more than making their own 



personal decision on who rules the 
country." 

As for undue influence on voters, most 
cited pressures at the work place. Not only 
do managers at a meeting instruct workers 
how to vote, "but they made it widely 
known that an enterprise will give all of its 
votes to one particular candidate" (Kharkiv, 
young adult). 

The stuffing of ballot boxes was seen as 
having the potential to change the outcome 
of an election, but only if voter turnout was 
low. Stuffing of ballots was described as a 
series of decisions and actions. For 
example, a veteran of elections in Odesa 
had observed that "city commissioners met 
to decide what to do about an election; they 
called in members of the raion and of the 
city council to discuss the election; they 
met with various officials and advised on 
election results. 1 witnessed when officials 
deposited a pile of ballots for one deputy, 
this "deposit" measured about 3-5 
centimeters." 

These practices were seen as minimally 
affecting the election outcome. The largest 
estimate was given in Odessa - 30% of the 
votes could be falsified. But, the adult 
giving this estimate noted, "this could not 
happen in the presidential election, because 
falsification can only work with a low 
turnout." 

Discussion on the election included a few 
nostalgic comments for the Soviet period, 
when elections were a real national holiday, 
full of festivities and entertainment. In 
comparison, current elections were drab, 
overloaded with slogans and posters. 
These observations were made in passing 



II 



and are reported here because they portray 
£ reality of today*! Ukraine. In the first 
round, the mood of gravity was pervasive; 
in Kyre, the stillness of the city in sharp 
contrast to its more relaxed mood on other 
days or to the excitement: when its soccer 
team is playing. Maybe this **nan exciting*' 
mood is typical of an unfolding political 
culture, which has no traditions to celebrate 
i winner or console a loser, 

'There were also many comment* on 
campaign costs - the production of 
campaign literature and the travel of 
candidates. What participants found 
particularly irritating' was that candidates 
had the ability to raise substantial funds, 
but not one candidate did or would use this 
energy and talent to help the needy. 

With one or two exceptions, participants 
did not show extensive understanding of 
the election process. In Kyiv, a few 
mentioned the mayoral election as an 
example of problems and noted that courts 
got involved. Nor were international 
observers seen as contributing to make the 
election fair and honest. In Odessa, for 
example, the prevailing view about 
international observers was that they 
contribute to the "intrigues" in an election. 

4. Will voters participate in the 
election? 

Virtually every participant intended to vote 
in the first round (October 3 1) as well as in 
the second round. Older adults and 
participants in Kharkiv and Odesa were 
more passionate in their commitment to 
vote than were younger adults and residents 
of Kyiv. Participants were not committed 
to any one candidate, but did have 



preferences and wanted more information 
before making a decision. 

Given the palpable disgust with polities,. 

and the universal expectation that the 
elections will not be fair or honest, the 
finding on voting intention was somewhat 
Surprising. However, participants believed 
that large voter turnout is the best way to 
thwart election fraud — by voting you 
prevent' someone else from voting for you, 
Moreover, voting is a right of cituenship, 
and,, as one voter said "it makes us proud." 
In sum, voting in Ukraine is an accepted 
practice, a right that the electorate wants to 
protect and does exercise. Turnout for the 
1999 election first round was 64% and 
reached a high of 75% in the second round. 

Participants considered voting a passive 
political act. Many felt that voters have no 
real choice, in part because little is known 
about a candidate's platform and his/her 
team. The attitude of many participants 
was cynicism, about elections and politics in 
general, tempered by hope that one day 
voters will matter. The Kaniv agreement 
contributed to this cynical view: 
participants saw candidates brokering deals 
and ignoring the electoral process. Typical 
of this attitude was the comment that 
"voting is not for the people, but for the 
candidates." An election was seen as a 
competitive game, with voters the judges, 
and the candidates, the players. 

5. What attributes should the president 
of Ukraine have? 

Participants described the "ideal" president 
as firm, honest, truthful, educated, morally 
and physically fit, and personally wealthy. 
They wanted the president to be a family 



12 



man, future oriented, and sufficiently old to 
be wise, but sufficiently young to be 
dynamic. Additionally they wanted the 
president "to love Ukraine" (a phrase used 
in all groups). A president had to be a 
guarantor of the Constitution and, 
therefore, had to respect the rule of law and 
embrace the emergence of a civic society. 

Equally important were managerial skills 
and experience in running an enterprise. A 
few wanted a president who owned a 
private, successful business. This view was 
well argued by a young urbanite in Kharkiv: 
"Owners of business are trained in 
economic matters and can clearly define 
their purposes and responsibilities." 

Most agreed that a president cannot rule 
alone and needs to bring a good team to the 
government ("kommanda") and be able to 
work with the legislative branch. In 

discussing executive-legislative relations, a 
few noted that the Rada (Ukraine's 
parliament) has a strong anti-reform bloc 
and suggested that the new President 
dissolve the Rada and be given authority to 
rule for 6 months. 

Participants did not agree in three areas: 
whether the president must be from the 
new guard or the old guard, how important 
is membership in a political party, and if 
international experience is important. For 
example: 



Young urbanites divided sharply 
between those who wanted to see new 
faces and those who favored the old 
guard since they had a proven track 
record. 

In Odesa, some of the young favored a 
president not affiliated with a party, but 
others saw parties as essential and 
pointed to the success of such 
democracies as the U.S., England and 



Germany. 

■ In Kharkiv, young adults were quite 
irritated that political leaders kept going- 
overseas, whereas in Odesa, the same 
age group believed it was important that 
a president had international standing. 

In these discussions on the "ideal" president 
there was little appreciation that the 
president sets the direction for the 
government and is the only government 
official elected by all people. Not 
surprisingly, discussions on the ideal 
president did not address accountability, 
that a president has a special relationship 
with the electorate and, as their elected 
official, is responsive and accountable to the 
people. 



13 



PRESIDENTIAL 






::::: : :V:: : S : ::>::-: : : : ::::: : ; : ;i>':'; : ':'; : ;v: :: : : :v-: ; :-: 



6. What do voters know about the 



candidates? 



« 



.:■■:.-.■ ■ : ' 



Opinions regarding the presidential 
candidates were quite soft. The candidates 
most frequently named spontaneously were 
Kuchma, Moroz, Marchuk, Vitrenko, and 
Udovenko; a few mentioned Kravchuk, the 
former president, and were immediately 
corrected that he is not a candidate. 
Other names came up with some 
prompting- 
Participants have only very superficial 
knowledge of the presidential candidates. 
None of the candidates had a distinct image 
in terms of policies or overall political and 
economic values. As a matter of fact, not 
one candidate was seen to have a distinct 
policy identity. Participants generally knew 
only basic biographic data about the 
candidates - what positions they had and 
their party affiliation. This paucity of 
information is not surprising since 
television news was the main information 
source and the stations covered the 
candidates in their official positions — the 
president, the deputies, the speakers of the 
Rada. As a result, participants knew what 
candidates did in their official capacity and 
not their policies as presidential candidates. 

Most could report on President Kuchma's 
travels around the countiy and his meetings 
with national and international leaders. 
Symonenko was primarily known as the 
leader of the Communist Party and most 
urbanites saw him as a leader of the rural 



population. An older participant in Kyiv 
opined that villagers would vote for 
Symonenko because most peasants wanted 
to return to holkhozes. This assumption 
was erroneous, since the village vote went 
in greater proportions to Kuchma than to 
Symonenko. Marchuk was known as a 
former member of the KGB and that he 
had helped some dissidents in the Soviet 
period. Moroz was liked and disliked 
because of his actions as a speaker of the 
Rada. Udovenko and Kostenko were 
known as members of the embattled Rukh 
party. Vitrenko appealed because she was a 
woman and some felt that it would be 
refreshing to have a woman at the helm. 
She was not seen as an attractive candidate, 
mainly because, as one Kharkiv young adult 
noted, "her relationships are not the best . . 
. and she is far removed from the standards 
that we would like to see in a person 
running for president." 

What was obvious in these discussions is 
the paucity of real information about the 
candidates and a frustration among the 
more informed that the candidates did not 
offer real options. A number of participants, 
especially the young and particularly in 
Odesa, wanted to vote against all 
candidates, but realized that by doing so 
they would not bring about the needed 
changes. 

7. Are political parties useful to identify 
candidates? 

Discussions on the role of political parties 
were far ranging and no consensus 
emerged. In all three cities, there were 
strong proponents as well as strong 
opponents to political parties. 



14 



Opponents saw no useful role for political 
parties in a presidential election. Some felt 
that parties were the reason why reforms 
were not proceeding, referring mainly to 
party activity in the Rada. Moreover, 
opponents to parties hoped that once a 
presidential candidate was elected, he or 
she would sever all relationships with a 
party; Kuchma's "no-party affiliation" was 
cited as an example of presidential behavior. 

In contrast, advocates of political parties 

considered party identification indicative of 

a candidate's overall orientation and of the 

inner circle of a candidate, the team of 

people that will work for and with a 

president. To prove the relevance of parties 

in a presidential campaign, participants 

noted that candidates from a communist 

party are pro Russian and pro CIS, whereas 

candidates from centrist and center-right 

parties have a west European orientation. 

A young participant in Kharkiv would not 

vote for Symonenko because of his party 

affiliation, a party that "would take two 

steps back and return to communism." 

Comments of an older participant in Kyiv 

were typical of the overall pro-party 

discussions: "In the U.S., a political party 

selects and supports a candidate and, in a 

way, is responsible for the candidate, who 

becomes the party's leader. Thus, a party 

in the U.S. offers a system of 

accountability. And in Ukraine - to whom 

is a candidate accountable? Take Kuchma 

- who does he represent and who can 

demand accountability from him: 1 have 

nothing against Kuchma, only use him as 

an example. What Ukraine needs are 

responsible parties; not individuals, single 

persons. . . Political parties serve a very 

useful purpose - they can be in a position of 

responsibility and demand accountability." 



A dominant undercurrent in many 
comments about political parties was a 
general disgust with all of them. One- 
reason for this negative attitude may be the 
seventy years of domination by the 
Communist party. As one participant in 
Odesa said, "Seventy years of rule by a 
single party is definitely more than enough 
for Ukraine." However, the more probable 
reason is that parties competing currently 
in Ukraine have not delivered. An urbanite 
in Odesa, put it this way: "Ukraine has 
many political parties, but they are 
unconcerned about the problems of the 
people and are only interested in their own 
personal gains." This may be one of 
Ukraine's greatest weakness as an emerging 
democracy ~ political parties are seen as 
serving personal egos and are not a group 
of individuals who come together for a 
common good. 

8. Is the Icft-to right political spectrum 
meaningful for differentiating candidates? 

To get an overview of how voters saw the 
overall philosophical orientation of 
candidates, each participant was asked to 
place candidates on a left-to-right political 
spectrum. No questions were raised about 
a left-to-right designation, indicating that 
participants understood the ideological 
configuration. 

The table below affirms the view of many 
participants that candidates did not have a 
clearly defined ideological position (the 
table excludes the first two sessions in Kyiv, 
since its participants did not record their 
placement of candidates on a spectrum). 
About one-fourth of the participants could 
not identify the ideological orientation of 
candidates. Among those who did, the 



15 



picture that emerges is quite murky for all 
hut the two leading candidates, Kuchma 
and Symonenko. Kuchma was seen as 
politically right of center or center, and 
only a few placed Kuchma on the left. 
Similarly, Symonenko, the leading- 
communist candidate, was seen as 
ideologically on the left (except for a few 
who placed him on the right). None of the 
other candidates had a clear ideological 
image. Marchuk straddled both the left and 



the right, (as many placing him on one as 
on the other side). The two other 
communist candidates, iMoroz and 
Vitrenko, although mainly on the left, were 
seen by a number of participants as 
ideologically on the right. As unclear were 
the images of Udovenko and especially of 
Kostenko — slightly more participants 
placed these two candidates on the right 
than did on the left. 



Figure 2. Placement of Candidates on Political Spectrum 

Focus Groups , September and October, 1999 





Left 


Center 


Right 


Bazyliuk 


Haber 




■? 




Karmazyn I 


Kononov 




2 


2 


Kostenko 


7 


7 


8 


Kuchma 


5 


7 


24 


Marchuk 


13 


3 


13 


Moroz 


15 


1 


9 


Gliynyk 


1 


I 




Onopenko 


3 


1 


1 


Rzavskiy 


2 


-i 




Symonenko 


28 




4 


Tkachenko 


11 


1 


7 


Udovenko 


9 




If) 


Vitrenko 


18 


1 


13 



In the two discussions held a few days 
before the election, participants did not 
have any clearer view of the candidates' 
ideological position. For example, 

Udovenko, the candidate from Ukraine's 
leading centrist party Rukh, was placed on 
the left, along with Moroz and Symonenko. 



These findings are presented not to 
document voters' misconceptions or errors, 
for the responsibility of a candidate's 
ideological image is with the candidate. 
Claim's that voters may have 
misunderstood the ideological leaning of 
candidates, is further documentation on the 
failing of candidates to send out coherent 
messages. 



16 



9. What information do voters need 
about a candidate? 

Participants considered biographic data and 

policy statements as the information most 

needed to make an informed decision. 

They wanted to know the following about 

each candidate: level of education; 

professional experience and 

accomplishments; if married how many 

children and what the children are doing; if 

family members Live abroad and what they 

are doing. On policy issues, participants 

wanted a clear statement on objectives and 

specifics on how a candidate proposed to 

cany out the objectives. 

Many participants wanted to know who 
were a candidate's close associates, the 
individuals who would become part of the 
government if a candidate were elected. 
Manv could speculate on this, but wanted 
confirmation. An older participant in Odesa 
put this very succinctly: "the team a 
president has can give an indication in what 
direction a president will lead. Marchuk 
will be surrounded by former members of 
the KGB, Kuchma by people from 
Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv, and 
Udovenko by residents from Lviv." 

in each group, the moderator asked what 
question would participants pose if he or 
she met a candidate. Three issues 
dominated - economic and anti-corruption 
policies and attitude towards personal 
wealth. Specifically: 

■ How does a candidate propose to deal 
with the economic problems and to 
solve social inequities, especially the 
needs of pensioners and children? 



» What steps would a candidate take to 
curb corruption in the government and 
to ensure that his administration was 
free of illegal activities? 

■ If the president's salary was that of a 
laborer, would a candidate still want to 
be an elected official and how much 
does a candidate own, including any 
overseas accounts? 

Participants felt that the only way to 
become informed about candidates was to 
meet them face to face. In their view, the 
ideal would be to have information in mass 
media, especially newspapers and television, 
become acquainted with the material, and 
than ask questions of a candidate. It was an 
ideal, according to participants, since mass 
media too frequently lack substantive- 
information. The quality of political 
coverage was well summed up by a young 
female in Kharkiv who said that media 
report "who said what to whom" and "who 
met when with whom." 

Participants in the focus groups regularly . 
watched television news and followed 
developments in the press. The most 
popular television channels were Inter, 
Studio 1+1, UT1 and UT2. Among 
newspapers, over half of the participants 
read Fakty, a pro-Kuchma national daily 
published since 1997. About one-fourth 
read Sehodnya, a national daily that also 
started in 1997. 



17 



POLITICAL CULTURE 
AND THE INDIVIDUAL 

Although the group discussions focused on 
elections and the presidential candidates, 
many of the conversations reflected how 
participants defined the role and 
responsibilities of individuals in Ukraine's 
political system. Voters were seen as 
observers of political developments, as an 
audience watching' a show, and not active 
participants of the political process. A 
young Kyi van thus described how 
individuals experienced the last decade: 
"During perestroika there was a 
tremendous amount of information and we 
were all very political. We would run home 
and watch the screen to hear statements 
from the Supreme Soviet, from All Union 
conferences and various meetings. ...We 
listened and studied all the details, closely 
following all of the changes taking place. 
Over many years we were heavily 
politicized, but interest in political issues 
severely declined and, understandably, 
many have become apolitical." This lack of 
interest in politics was attributed mainly to 
the fact that very little is currently changing 
in Ukraine. 

The focus group discussions suggest that 
voters in Ukraine probably would reject the 
proposition that in a democratic society 
individuals can bring about change, not 
individually but by voting and through civic 
activism. Although in Ukraine voting is 
exercised with pride, it is a passive act and 
does not give individuals a sense of 
empowerment. The behavior of voters in 
Ukraine suggests that they may be aware of 



their actual power, and probably intuitively 
understand this, and therefore vote. 

Nor did the group discussions show any 
appreciation for the role and potential 
influence of groups, including organizations 
as well as coalitions, that come together to 
achieve common objectives. The negative 
attitudes towards political parties may be 
justifiable by the 70 year single party rule 
and the poor performance of parties since 
independence. Moreover, the comments of 
participants that a political party exists to 
satisfy the ego of its leader may be an 
accurate reflection of some (if not many) 
parties. However, a democratic system of 
government rests on political parties, which 
are an essential feature of a functioning 
democracy. Therefore, the political 

parties in Ukraine may well need to review 
their past and present performance and find 
means not only to reach the electorate, but 
to persuade voters that they are an effective 
means to achieve common goals. 

Notwithstanding the emergence of 
independent mass media and the many 
newspapers in Ukraine, there remains a 
paucity of information. The problem is 
dual - availability and attitudinal. The 
former is primarily an economic issue, such 
as the cost of newspapers or the support for 
expanding the coverage of a television 
signal. The latter, attitudinal, is about what 
voters view as their rights in terms of 
information. In Ukraine voters do not have 
a sense that they are entitled to information 
and can demand such. This perception is 
very significant, since democracy works 
only when voters can make rational choices 
based on a forthright presentation of 
information. 



18 



Note on Methodology 

The project was designed to explore 
attitudes towards the presidential election 
and to examine the informational needs of 
the public. The research issues were 
operationalized in a moderator's guide as a 
series of questions that a moderator used to 
direct the discussions. Each group was led 
by an experienced moderator, who probed 
for specifics and sought detailed 
explanations. To gauge reactions to 
communications products, participants 
filled out a set of short questions on each 
product. 

QEV Analytics designed the research 
elements of the project - defined the 
demographic profile of participants, 
prepared the moderator's guides, the fill-in 
questionnaires (on the demographics of 
participants and their reactions to the 
communications products). QEV Analytics 
analysts were present at all discussions and 
briefed each moderator on the purpose of 
the session. 

The Ukrainian firm the Kyiv International 
Institute of Sociology (Kyiv) conducted all 
aspects of ficldwork: screened and invited 
the participants, arranged for all group 
discussions, and prepared transcripts and 
processed the quantified data. A total of 79 
participants participated in the discussions 
in the three cities - Kyiv, Odessa and 
Kharkiv. All participants were eligible 
voters, employed at least part-time or in 
school or training full-time, had at least 10 
years of education, and were not members 
of a political party (for details on 



demographic profile of participants, see 
Tables on pages 3 and 25. 









19 



Moderator's Guide I 

FOCUS GROUPS IN KYTV, ODESSA, KHARKJV 
SEPTEMBER 14-16,1999 



1. 



INTRODUCTION (7 minutes) 



Greer participants . . . 

We mil spend together about two hours 
discussing the political situation in Ukraine. 
Our purpose is to gain a better understanding 
of how voters view the political process in 
Ukraine, especially their opinions and attitudes 
towards the upcoming election. 

We are soliciting your own personal views and 
opinions. In this discussion, there are no right 
or wrong answers or comments; different 
people will have different responses to a 
question. Your main task is to feci free in 
expressing your opinion. Please feel free to 
speak in Ukrainian or Russian. 

Our discussion will be recorded on video; this is 
done only for analytical purposes, to make it 
easier to recall what was said. 

Before we begin the discussion, let us take a few 
minutes and introduce ourselves — please state 
your name and briefly tell us something about 
yourselves. 

If. SITUATION IN UKRAINE 
(1 5 minutes) 

1 . First Jet us briefly review the current 
situation in Ukraine. What do you 
consider to be the main problems that our 
country currently faces? 

LIST PROBLEMS CITED ON AN 

EASEL 

Which of these do you consider to be the 
most serious (rani: order listed problems). 

2. |FOR TOP LISTED PROBLEMS) Is it 
possible for the government or the 



20 



President to solve this problem? Probe: 
why/why not? (Develop views on efficacy 
of government]. 

[FOR NEGATIVE PARTICIPANTS) 
Could another leader — someone not now 
in position — bring about the needed 
changes? 



111. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 
(30 minutes) 

3. Other than solving these problems, what do 
you want a President of Ukraine to do or 
be: 

4. _ As you are well aware, the presidential 

election is scheduled for this October. Do 
you expect these elections will be fair and 
honest? Why/why not? 

Are you going to vote in the election? 
PROBE the degree to which voters are 
committed to vote. ASK THOSE NOT 
DEFINITE ABOUT VOTING — Why' 

5. Next, let's discuss the presidential 
ca n d i da tes . M'Tno a re th e ca n d i da tes 
registered for the presidential election? 
How well do you know each of the 
candidates? What do you know about each 
of the candidates? 

MENTION NAMES OF CANDIDATES 
NOT CITED BY PARTICIPANTS — 
What have you heard about these 
candidates? 

For the candidates you know, please try to 
place each on a political spectrum from 
right to left. Is such designation of 
candidates meaningful? 

Do you need more information in order to 
make an informed decision when you vote? 

Which candidates have you seen on TV? 



6. Suppose I am a candidate for President of 
Ukraine. What questions would you like to 
ask me in order to decide whether you 
would vote for me or not? 

7. What information is most important for 
you to know, in order to decide for whom 
you are going to vote? PROBE on policy 
issues that are mentioned 

8. Do you already know for whom you are 
going to vote, or is your mind not yet made 
up? [IF MIND MADE UP] Does the 
party membership of candidate matter for 
you? [PROBE FOR WHY PARTICULAR 
CANDIDATES ARE SELECTED] 

IV. TEST RADIO AND TELEVISION 
PROGRAM, BROCHURE (60min.) 

9. We will now proceed to evaluate some 
materials that are being prepared to bring 
out the vote in the presidential election and 
to ensure that adequate information is 
accessible to all voters. 



21 



Moderator's Guide II: 
Kyiv, October 27 or 2 8, 1999 

I. INTRODUCTION (7 minutes) 

Greet participants . . . 

We will spend together about two hours 
discussing the political situation in Ukraine. 
Our purpose is to gain a better understanding 
of how voters view the political process in 
Ukraine, especially their opinions and attitudes 
towards the upcoming election and information 
sources. 

We are soliciting your own personal views and 
opinions. In this discussion, there are no right 
or wrong answers or comments; different 
people will have different responses to a 
question. Your main task is to feel hee in 
expressing your opinion. 

Our discussion will be recorded on video; this is 
done only for analytical purposes, to make it 
easier to recall what was said. 

Before we begin the discussion, let us take a few 
minutes and introduce ourselves — please stare 
your name and briefly tell us something a/x)ut 
yourselves. 

II. SITUATION IN UKRAINE 
(15 minutes) 

10. First let us briefly review the current 
situation in Ukraine. What do you 
consider to be the main problems that our 
country currently feces? 

LIST PROBLEMS CITED ON EASEL 

Which of these do you consider co be the 
most serious (rank order listed problems). 

1 1 . [FOR TOP LISTED PROBLEMS] Is it 
possible for government to solve this 
problem? Probe: why/why not? [Develop 
views on efficacy of government]. 



III. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND 
ELECTIONS (20 minutes) 

12. How would you describe the presidential 
campaign — did it provide you with 
information that you need to make an 
informed decision on the candidates? 
PROBE — what did you learn from the 
many political discussions of the last two or 
three weeks? 

13. As you are well aware, the presidential 
election is scheduled this Sunday. Do you 
expect these elections will be fair and 
honest? Why/why not? 

14. If there is a problem with the "honesty" of 
the election, how will it occur? Is it in the 
counting of the votes? The pressures pur on 
voters? The lack of access to mass media by 
some candidates? 

1 5. Thinking of all the candidates that you 
know, please try to place each on a political 
spectrum from right to left. Is such 
designation of candidates meaningful? 

III. VOTING in TWO- WEEKS 

(1 5 minutes) 

16. If no candidate wins a majority, a run-off 
election will be held in two weeks. How 
likely is it that you will vote in the run-off 
election? 

PROBE — Why not (especially of those 
who are indefinite about voting)? 

17. Suppose I am a candidate for President of 
Ukraine. In the run-off election. What 
questions would you like to ask me in order 
to decide whether you would vote for me or 
not? 

IV. INFORMATION SOURCES 
(20 minutes) 

18. What information is most important for 
you to know, in order to decide for whom 



22 






you are going to vote? PROBE on policy 
issues that are mentioned. 

19. Please iist all the campaign advertising 
which you remember seeing concerning the 
election. [FOR EACH] Did you find this 
advertisement effective or not? Do you 
remember seeing any advertising 
concerning the importance of voting? 
What was your opinion on that advertising: 
was it effective in getting people to vote? 

20. What information sources do you consider 
most useful to make an informed decision 
about who to vote for in a national election? 

LIST SOURCES CITED ON EASEL 

PROBE for specific media and include 
personal sources. 

Which of these do you consider to be the 
most informative (rank order listed 
problems). 

2 1 . What are some reasons the mass media — 
television, radio, or newspapers — did not 
have the information that you needed about 
candidates? 

VI POLITICAL PARTIES (15 minutes) 

22. Let us now look at political parries. How 
would you describe the importance of the 
parties in the political process of selecting a 
president for Ukraine? PROBE — I Jow 
well did political parries do to support their 
candidate? What problems did parries 
encounter? 

23. Do you feel you are voting for this person 
because of who they are, or because of the 
parry they represent? |PROBE FOR WHY 
PARTICULAR CANDIDATES ARE 
SELECTED] 

24. And in conclusion, would anyone like to 
predict on how the candidates will do this 



Sunday? Who will be the leading candidates 
after the vote on Sunday? 



23 



Questionnaire 

focus groups in kytv, odessa and 

Kj-iARKiv- September, October 1999 

Please fill-in all of the questions, placing an "x" 
in the appropriate box. The data are only for 
statistical purposes. 



. Wh 


at is your sex? 


a 


Male 


a 


Female 


. Wh 


at is your age? 


□ 


18-25 


□ 


26-35 


a 


40-45 


a 


46-50 


a 


51-55 



3. What is your highest education level? 

□ Some primary 

Q Completed primary 

Q Some secondary 

Q Completed secondary 

□ Some or completed technical 
Q Some or completed university 
Q Currently a student 

4. What is your employment status? 

□ Working full time in one place 
Q Working part-time in one place 

□ Working occasionally in different places 
Q Not employed 

□ Student 

5. Do you plan to vote this Sunday in the 
national election? 

□ Yes, definitely will vote 

□ Yes, probably will vote 

□ No, probably will not vote 
Q No, definitely will not vote 
Q Have not made up my mind 

6. Did you vote in the 1 998 Rada election? 

Q \'es 

a No 

□ Do not remember 



7. To keep informed about events and 
developments in Ukraine, what information 
sources do you use on a daily basis? 

□ Newspaper (please name) 

Q Radio (please name station and 

program) 

Q Television (please name station and 

program) 

8. Is there anyone in the news business, like a 
writer or a commentator, that you consider 
especially trustworthy and whose opinions you 
value: 

□ Please name and give affiliation: 



9. How would you describe your interest in 
politics and government? 

□ Very interested 

□ Somewhat interested 

□ Not very interested 

□ Not at all interested 

10. Are you a member of any of the following 
organizations? Please check all that apply. 

□ Trade union 

Q Professional association 

□ Nongovernmental association 
Q Sports club 

□ Political party 

1 I. What political party or association, if any, 
do you feel best represents the interests of 
people like you? Please record name of party 
or association 

Thank you for your cooperation. 



24 



QUANTIFIED DATA 
Focus Group Discussions 
September and October, 1 999 



telllsy 


^S^M^^^^S 


^l^M^^^^ 










#1111 


Kyiv 


Gctessa 


Kharkiv 


llll 


18-25 


19 


7 


8 


4 


[p: 


::::: 2.e:-:35 


21 


13 


2 


6 




40-45 


14 


10 


3 


1 


I : : 


46-50 


16 


5 


4 


7 




. 51-55 

■■ ■■ ■ - 


9 


5 


2 


2 




^sIM^&^^Si^&SXll^i^.! £ 








Total 


llliliilli 


Odessa 




18-25 
26-35 

40-45 

•••••:46-50 

51-55 


19 
21 

14 
16 
9 


7 

13 

10 

5 

5 


8 
2 
3 
4 
2 


4 

6 
1 
7 
2 



Ig^Mta 


: Q; 




lIBi 


■^l^^^fi 


liiiliill 


llllllllliilli 


iisnii^ 








i^^S^ 










Total 




WMBMmBM 


llllillfl 


v Kharkiv 




Primary] 

Secondary 

Technical! 

University ] 


2 

9 
21 

47 




2 
7 
12 
19 




2 
2 
15 




7 
13 



iillilllfli i^^^^^^^ 


J0J|||lI|L|ji 


;;■; 
























































Total 


Kyiv 


i m 


im 


jfkitf ■ 1 


% ■: ; Mo/king i RultTinis 

Unemployed 
Student 


46 
23 

1 
9 


26 
12 


2 


i 

c 

1 


! 14 

> 2 


L 4 



TOJMBHHf 


^^S^^^^^^^ 


*g; 




;.;■. 


^§ji||*f*^j< 


$*£P 


! ff§??P? 


iHST 








































lllIIsP^iP^Ii*l3 


S»3 


^Mm^So^is^ - * : 
















Total 


Kyiv 


^eiiiii 


fl:P*aprlIl 


OoMot^emernfeer 


55 
17 
7 


28 
6 
6 


14 
5 




13 

6 

1 



25 




Fakty 
Komsomlskaya Pravda 

Kievskiye Vedoslmosti 

Trud 



ffi&M 



.Chen 



mm 
uner 



'" if? 



■ 



ilo;Nt 
Odessa 




19 
44 

5 
4 
7 
3 
2 
2 
1 
3 
1 
8 
3 
2 
1 
1 
3 
1 
5 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 



16 
35 

74 
75 
72 
76 
77 
77 
78 
76 
78 
71 
76 
77 
78 
78 
76 
78 
74 
78 
78 
78 
77 
78 
78 
78 
78 



illll 


Is! 




M^^^SS^ 


■§33: 


^^^^^^^^ 


s^^^ 


m 


R»^T{?^|| 










iljf-F? 


^s 8?*1|§s~IjI? 
















KilsKSlsSSfii^ 




Kyiv 


IhUM 


IliiSiliifl 








Illll 


V, 

res 


35 
44 


8 

32 


15 

4 


12 
8 



26 




Nashe Radio 
Radio Svobods" 






1st Program - Centra! Radio 



2nd Program - Central 

; 3rd Prog ram - C entrat Radio 

Kievskiye Vedomosti 

Promto 



w-r 1 

to Radio 

Uiar 

>dessa + 

HHFM 

Simon 

Favortt 

dio Qfiix 

ai Radio 

os Kyiva 

ie Welle 

101 FM 



4 
1 
3 
1 
7 
1 
1 
2 
8 

70 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 



75 

78 

76 

78 

72 

78 

78 

77 

71 

9 

78 

77 

78 

78 

77 

77 

77 

78 

78 

78 

78 

78 



wuuuuuu; 

1111311 


^ES^S^^S^ 




11111 


&SI*slIl& 


ifllyyj 


IImIF^ -'^liilii 


^®St?^* i, ^W^^^ t e^^^&t? s ^^*W* 








^msiislMI^SIIi&M^IgS 


llSl 




^^^^^>; : ; raiss&sfe 


\'Ui ?};Si : §| kSllH -IS : ; &'- : : : -S- %• KJSii: !■???:• K 


WmmMmmMm 


No 


NTV 


13 


66 


RTR 


9 


70 


filter 


54 


25 


;:■ 1+1 


34 


45 


UT-2 


21 


58 


ORT 


7 


72 


UT-1 


27 


52 


Utar 


2 


72 


TET 


3 


76 


NTU 


1 


78 


STV 


3 


76 


Mtst 


1 


78 


Channel 7 


3 


76 


A\TVC 


4 


75 


Simon 


3 


76 


:.:.. ATV 


1 


78 



27 



nimn 






^^^^^^Pj^gMls^ 










^YA:;v,i,A l -iftV,w.^iVrtf, J aftYf.STiWH 










^1P ■ 


III- ■ mm 


Parfenovlch 


2 


77 




s:l s 1 U :{ Verescr i 


3 


76 




Mazur 


5 


74 




Dobrovo 


2 


77 




Posner 


5 


74 




Pikhovshyk 


5 


74 




DorenkO 


4 


75 




Kisetev 


4 


75 




Osokin 




78 




Victoria 




78 




A; Kfiv^fiKc? 




78 




V; I^OJ"Qa* 




78 




A. Kirp 




78 




N. MiKhalko 




78 




Y Makarov 




78 




A LvuiDirnov 




78 




Mitkova 




78 




. M.Ostepenko 




78 




k V. Dolganov 




78 




A. Tkacbenko 




78 




\f "T k a c Jii t k 




78 
78 




No One 


38 


41 





^m^mf^^'r- — : — ^p|ippj^^^.7^^'^:''.''''r'''^^f| 






j Total 


Kyiv 


Odessa 


Kharktv 


Interested] 60 
Not Very f nterested ! 1 8 
Not At AHInterestedj 1 


31 
8 
1 


13 

6 




16 

4 





iM^lpl^lSI^B 












Total 


Kyiv 


Odessa 


Knarkiv 


Progressive Socialist 


2 





1 


1 


Communist 


1 





1 





Rukh 


2 


1 


1 





Socialist 


3 


1 


2 





Reform and Order 


1 





1 





Green 


1 


1 








Soaar Democratic 1 


2 


2 








Peoptes Democratic 


1 


1 








No Party Association 


26 


9 


5 


12 


Do Not Know 


40 


25 


8 


7 



29 



^ n t>-++f n . n n n .t* r .iit- n nn .t n - n . nn 1 n ii.i i .i n h .ii u 1 1 m i 

Trade Union 

■ Professional Association 

Non-Governmentaf Organization 

Sports CM? 

Political Par 



41 
1 
4 
13 
3 



38 
78 
75 
66 
76 



ii 


His 








h!«? 


' '>':: 


i*£ 


i\^&" 




■;:>," 




^Sl 


^SjKSws 


IlSlllMMSlil 


■ '.' !■:■:■;■:■ 














S&SSBS&j' ■ -■^^^^^g^jj^^jj^j^^j^^jj^jj^j 










- ■ 




w* 


*k1 




l^SpIilt^filI?*l8r3 


!*Iiift?£ $ {&&$$rS 














III:" villi 


Od©ss© 


Kharkiv 






6 


41 


17 


11 

8 


13 

7 








Y€ 






31 


i 






23 



30